Poll: City radius

[Grumbold]

The CtP problems with expanding city radius are varied. Its difficult to distinguish it from the many balance problems the game has. A radius 2 city can easily support all the buildings so many radius 2 cities are better than a quarter the number of radius 4 ones, particularly at the start of the game. Because CtP2 does not allocate workers to tiles, the rollover points when the radius expands can actually see a fall in worker productivity because the effort is distributed evenly over less beneficial and less improved tiles. The government-set limit on cities is the biggest incentive to build further apart but that is offset by the poor defensibility (when not playing against the timid AI.)

[Tiberius]

Interesting idea, Adm.Naismith.

Let's see how many possibilities do we have:
1. far sea tiles - port facility
2. tiles behind high mountains - road/railroad ?
3. tiles on the other side of rivers - bridge building
4.... something else ?

Anyway, since you voted nr.2, the problem with far tiles could start only with the second circle, which means (probably) 8 size cities.

[The Viceroy]

#1 gets my vote.

Although it would be nice to have it optional for scenario's.

[Sabre2th]

I vote for #2. I liked the expanding radius idea, but Activision went too far.

[airdrik]

My vote goes to 2), but like Adm.Naismith said, I want the city radii to be dynamic ie. you start with the tile the city starts on, and one adjacent tile, then you/the computer picks between one of the adjacent tiles to those tiles you started on each time your city grows. then you could have city radii that look like this:
wwwww
w...w
w..wwwww
.....cw
.....wwwww
or
wwwwww
.....www
......cwww...ww
........w.....w
....wwwwwwwwwwww
rather than
.www
wwwww
wwcww
wwwww
.www

[This message has been edited by airdrik (edited February 15, 2001).]

[wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 02-15-2001 12:16 PM My vote goes to 2), but like Adm.Naismith said, I want the city radii to be dynamic ie. you start with the tile the city starts on, and one adjacent tile, then you/the computer picks between one of the adjacent tiles to those tiles you started on each time your city grows. then you could have city radii that look like this: wwwww w...w w..wwwww .....cw .....wwwww or wwwwww .....www ......cwww...ww ........w.....w ....wwwwwwwwwwww rather than .www wwwww wwcww wwwww .www [This message has been edited by airdrik (edited February 15, 2001).]

Intersting idea Airdrik. I think I see what you are getting at - with your suggestion a player would be able to control/mold how his city expands. I like it!

[Sarxis]

I like the idea, but when Activision implemented it into CTP2, it didn't work well. This is due to the fact that you can't assign a city's workers in CTP2, which means you get locked in to which squares are worked by which cities. But if you can pick and choose which bases work which sqaures, the expanding system might be worth while.

[Tiberius]

Results so far:

Choice......Votes
1..............3
2..............7
3..............2
4..............1
5..............1

[Trachmir]

I guess my vote goes to #3 then... but I think the cities should grow... for example I live in Miami, if you count Miami/Ft. Lauderdale/Homestead/West Palm Beach all as one city (which in civ terms you could), they do indeed expand the urban centers over hundreds of miles.

[Jonny]

I vote for 2. I liked the idea in CTP2, but Activision didn't implement it very well. Also, please let us choose where our workers go!

Jonny
[This message has been edited by Jonny (edited February 16, 2001).]

[Youngsun]

I recall someone mentioned 9 squres(Colonisation)with distant workcamps(Imperialism)and that sounds very interesting.

.......w.
.........
.w.......
...www...
...wcw...
...www...
.........
w......w.

work camps can be connected to the city by railways or road.

I'm also interested in Admiral's idea too.
Bravo Admiral!
[This message has been edited by Youngsun (edited February 17, 2001).]

[Ralf]

Firaxis has mentioned that they already playes around with a very early & premature beta-version of the game. If so; any such elementary game core-element as for example what city-radius model they should apply, has most probably already been decided, designed and irreversibly implemented.

So any present & future polls dealing with core-elements of Civ-3 is basically a waste of time.
At this stage; polls should instead be about minor addon features, or minor tweaks & changes in the game.

About my viewpoints on the city-area issue; well, Im all in for building on what we already got in Civ-2: Enhancements based on the good old fixed 21-square city-area model, together with that ingenious clickable city-area view. Check out The pitfalls of expanding city-areas in Civ-3 to find out more why any type of expanding city-areas is alltogether bad and weak ideas.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited February 17, 2001).]

[Roman]

I think the Civ2 system of city management worked just fine, so I vote to keep it.

[Stuff2]

I've posted a different idea on this subject. The post is called "Satellite cities". Yes i know it's a silly name but it's actually about this topic.

[Roman]

quote: Originally posted by Stuff2 on 02-17-2001 01:46 PM I've posted a different idea on this subject. The post is called "Satellite cities". Yes i know it's a silly name but it's actually about this topic.

I have seen that thread and I love the idea.